Talk:Beyond Good & Evil (video game)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tezero (talk) 01:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Wanted to review this as soon as possible due to its position on the bounty board.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Some awkward prose things; shouldn't be too hard to fix:

• Jade (Beyond Good & Evil) should be linked at her first appearance in the article's prose, which is in the second sentence of "Gameplay".
• Merge the fourth (quasi-)paragraph of "Development" into the third.
• In the second paragraph in "Reception", link Official PlayStation Magazine.
• In the second to last paragraph before "Awards and legacy", the individual sentences about the opinions of Edge and Icon Magazine contain no less than four and three quotes, respectively. Paraphrase, man.
• In that same paragraph, italicize the following: "Edge", "Icon Magazine", "Final Fantasy", and "GamePro".
• The "Reception" section overall doesn't have the best organization. For example, the second paragraph in the section contains opinions about the graphics (GameSpot), storytelling (Eurogamer), graphics and gameplay (IGN), technical issues (1UP.com and Official PlayStation Magazine). The section contains individual paragraphs about each of these aspects.
• Remove the "see also" thing in "Awards and legacy" about Beyond Good & Evil 2, since there are only two sentences (one line, even, on my wide computer screen) about the game. Just link the game where it is mentioned in the prose.

1. B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Good job with all the print sources.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Upload a cover art image without the platform-specific (i.e. PC) header.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I'm putting this on hold for now. This isn't a bad article, overall. I'm just telling you stuff that I think should be done now, so the FAC is more painless. Looks good. I'm passing it. Tezero (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed almost all the issues. All that remains is reorganizing the reception section; I'll ping you when I've done that. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

GamerPro64 told me. It looks better. Tezero (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)